42 Easter attacks suspects to face ‘watertight case’

Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera addressing the media briefing yesterday

•  Govt. keen to ensure prosecutors leave no loophole for suspects to go free without punishment
• Public Security Minister says 42 suspects to be served indictments before end July 
• These include 3 men facing terror charges in the US
• Says investigators had tough task piecing together massive evidence, given scale of attacks 

By Chandani Kirinde 

Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekera yesterday revealed 42 suspects who were under detention for their alleged involvement in the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks would be indicted by the end of July.

Among these were three suspects who had been charged with terrorism offenses by the US Justice Department last January, he added. Five Americans were among over 260 persons killed in the attacks on 21 April 2019.

Weerasekera told reporters that the Attorney General had informed him that the indictments could be served before the end of July with most investigations completed by the Police.

He said 54 officers of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID) worked with the AG’s Department to finalise the indictments.

“We want a ‘watertight case’ against the suspects. They have hired attorneys who are seen as the best in the field and if there is even a minor loophole on the part of the prosecution, they can go free,” Weerasekera said.

He said that there had been no delay in pressing charges given the scale of the probe with the investigators having the tough task of piecing together a great deal of evidence. 

“We know that the main culprits were killed in the suicide attacks but the Police had to find those who worked with them to help them carry out the attacks,” the Public Security Minister said.

Weerasekera also said all those who were being held under detention orders in connection with the attacks as well as those linked to extremist groups were persons against whom there was sufficient evidence for prosecution.